tv Evolution vs. Creationism Debate CSPAN February 19, 2014 8:00pm-10:31pm EST
mechanical engineering. the answers and genesis is well trafficked with two million visitors. mr.sham also a best selling author and host of daily radio feature carried on 700 stations. this is his second public debate on evolution and creation. ferris at -- first at harvard in 1990s. now, mr. ham, you offered to go first. you will be first with your five minute opening statement. >> good evening. i know that not everyone watching this debate necessarily agree with what of to say.
i'm an aussie and they tell me i have an an accent. it doesn't matter what i say some people tell me, we like to hear you saying it. the main topic is this, is creation a modern of origin. this was first announced on the internet, there were lot of states like this one, scientists should not debate creationist period. this one from the one discovery.com website, should scientists debate creationist. i believe there's a gross misrepresentation in their culture. we think being indoctrinated to believe that creationist can't be scientists. i want you to meet a modern day scientist who is a biblical
creationist. >> [inaudible] >> i will -- >> here's biblical creationest, he's a scientists and an inventor. i want people it understand that. the problem i believe, we need to define terms correctly. we need to define creation and evolution in regards to origin. i want to concentrate on dealing with the word science. i believe the word science has been hijacked by seculars. which means to know. if you look up a dictionary, science mean the state of
knowing and knowledge. this is where the confusion alies. there's experimental observational science. that's what produces our technology computer, spacecraft, jet planes, spoke detectors and looking at dna, medicines and vaccines. all scientists were the creationist or evolutionist is the same experimental science. do matter if you're a creationist or evolutionist, you can be a great scientists. or dr. raymond, he is a man who invented the mri scanner and revolutionized medicine. i want to understand, man evolution believes has nothing to do with developing technology. when we're talking about origin, we're talking about the path with origins. you weren't there, you can't
observe there. when you talking about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science. knowledge concerning the past. here at the creationist museum, origin is the creation of science. now, when you research science textbooks being used in public schools what we found is this. there are origins of historical science is based upon man's idea about the past. for example see ideas of darwin. public school textbooks using the same word science for observational, science and historical science. they arbitrarily define science as naturalism. they are imposing -- the word science has been hijacked by secularist in teaching evolution to force of the religion of
naturalism on the generation of kids. for instance, as bill states, -- >> for hard for accept for many of us to die it's over. >> the bible gives a different kind of origin of who we are and where we came from our future. god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. so, it is creation of bible modern of origin in today's modern scientific era. creation is the only bible model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. >> that it time. i have the job of being the time
keeper here. unlike the referee in football you don't like. i will stop them in the name of keeping it fair. mr.ham thank you for your comments. now it's mr. niece here. mr.pleasure to -- nye here. >> looking around the room, i see just one bow tie. i'm telling you, there's two, that's great. i started wearing bow ties when i was young in high school. his father showed him and there's a story associated with this which i find remarkable. my grandfather was in the rotary and he attended a convention in philadelphia and even in those days a the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. the tuxedo came with an untied
bowtie. he didn't know how to tie it. he took a chance, he went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door, excuse me, can you hell me tie my tie. the guy said sure, lie down on the bed. so, my grandfather wanted to have the tie on. he said to have laying on the bed, the guy tied a perfect bowtie knot. my grandfather said thank you. why do i have to lie down on the bed. dad said i'm and undertaker. that story was presented to me as a true story. it may or may not be. it gives you something to think about and certainly something to remember. here tonight, we're going to have two stories. we can compare mr. ham's story to story from what i would call,
outside. the question tonight is does ken ham's creation model hold up. is it viable. let me ask you all, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? that's right, you'd be home watching c.s.i. c.s.i. petersburg. on c.s.i., there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. these are constructs unique to mr. ham. we don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here. natural law apply in the past apply now. that's why they are natural law. that's how we nail these discoveries that enable all of this remarkable technology. c.s.i. is a fictional show and it's based on real people doing real work. when you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues
about the past. mr.ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide that somehow influence that we observe in nature. 500 wooden boat, eight zookeeper for animal, every land plant in the world under water for a full year. i ask us all is that reasonable. you'll hear a lot about the grand canyon which is a remarkable place. it has fossils. the fossils in the grand canyon are found in layers. there's not a single place in the grand canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over to another. in other words, when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to higher level. not any one of them did. if you can find evidence of that, you can change the world. now, i just want to remind us
all. there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. who get enriched who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion. they worship together. they eat together. they live in their communities and enjoy other company. but these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the earth is somehow only 6000 years old. that is unique. here's my concern. what keeps the united states ahead, what makes the united states a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. if we continue to choose science, and try to divide science into an observational science, historic science, we are not going to move forward. we will not brace natural law, we will not make discoveries and we will not event and stay ahead.
if you ask me if ken ham's creation model is viable, i would say no. it is not viable. stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. thank you all very much. >> very nice start by both of our debaters here. each one will offer 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. mr.ham, you're up. >> was this creation a bible margin. i made the statement at the end of my opening statement, creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science. i said what we need to be doing
is actually defining our terms. particularly terms, science, creation and evolution. i discussed the meaning of the word science. that both creationist and evolutionist can be create scientists. i mentioned craig, a biologist, he's an atheist and a great scientist. i want to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor. >> my family is dr. ray -- name is dr. raymond. i believe that god created the world in six 24 hour days just as recorded in the book of genesis. by god's grace and devoted prayers of my godly mother-in-law, i invented the scanner in 1969.
the scientists believe that the earth is 6000 years old, is simply wrong >> he's most adamant about that. he revolutionized medicine, he's a biblical creationist. i encourage people like that. let me introduce you to another biblical creation scientists. >> i received my ph.d. from indiana university. upon my retirement from the university in january of 2013, i joined the research staff. i'm a stellar astronomer. that means by primary i'm interested in stars. i published many materials in the astronomy literature, such as the astronomical journey. there is nothing in observational astronomy that
contradicts a recent creation. >> i mentioned dr. steward in england. he invented designed double action gear set of robotic arm on a very expensive satellite. in that had not worked, the whole satellite would be useless. yet dr. burgess is a biblical creationist. -- let's see what he says about scientists believing in creation. >> that's a real problem today. we need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics.
i want to say by the way, nonchristian scientists, are really borrowing from the christian world view to carry out their art. when they're doing observational science they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the laws of nature. they have to assume the uniformity of nature. if the universe came about natural process, where did the logic come from. did they pop into existence. i have a question for bill nye how do you account for the laws of logic and nature from the naturalistic world view that excludes the existence of god? in my opening statement, i also discussed a different type of science and norge, origin or historical science. there's a confusion here. there's a misunderstanding here. people by in large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past is
different what you observing in the present. you don't observe the past directly. when you think about the creation account, we can't observe god creating. we myth that. what you see in the present is very different. even some public school textbook, they sort of acknowledge the difference between historical and observational science. here is an earth science textbook used. in contrast to physical geology, historic algaology is to understand earth's long history. then they make the statement, historic algaology, tried to establish a time line of about a number of changes that have occurred in the past. we studied physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how earth works. we observe things in the present and then we're assuming that's
always happened in the past. try to figure out how this happened. there is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. let me illustrate it this way. if bill nye and went to the a grand canyon, we can agree that's the grand stone and there's the boundary. we can agree on that. you know what we will disagree on, we can analyze the minerals, we would disagree on how long it took to get there. there's a supposed ten million gap there. but i don't see a gap. there's a difference between what you actually observe directly and your interpretation. when i was at the space center a number of years, i met creationist and evolutionist -- you know what they disagreed on,
-- we can talk about lots of other similar things. for instance, i've heard bill nye -- i totally agree with him on that. we agree how radio activity enables that to work. if you will talk about the age of the earth, you have a problem. we could agree whether you're creationist or evolutionist on, we will disagree on how to interpret the origin of mars. there are some people believe there was a global site on mars and liquid water on mars. we're going to disagree may be on our interpretation of origin and you can't prove not from an observational science
perspective. creationest and evolutionist done work on medicine and vaccine. all scientist have the same experimental or observational science. i have a question for bill nye, can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in evolution? creationist and evolutionist all have the same evidence. bill nye and i have the same grand canyon. we would have the same fish fossil and the same dinosaur and same animals, same humans and same dna and radio active decay. we have the same universe. actually we all have the same evidences. it's not the evidence that are different, it's a battle over the same evidence in regard how we interpret the past. it's battle over philosophical world view and starting point and same evidence. i admit my starting point is god
is ultimate authority. if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. that's really the difference. i've been emphasizing the difference between historical knowledge about the past when you weren't there. we need to understand, we weren't there. or experimental or observational science using five senses in the present and what you can directly observe, test and repeat. there's a difference between the two. that's why kids aren't being taught to the think critically and correctly about the origin issue. it's also important to understand when talking about creation and evolution, both involve historical science and observational science. the role of observational science can be used to confirm one's historical science based on one's starting point. when you think about the debate topic and what i affirmed concerning creation, if our origins are historical science
based on the bible account of origins is true, then they should be predictions from this that we can test using observational science. there are. for instance, based on the bible, we'd expect to find evidence concerning intelligence confirming intelligence produce life. we'd expect to find evidence concerning the kind. the bible said god made animals after their kind and find each kind produces its own not that one kind changes into another. you expect to find evidence confirming one race of humans because we all go back to adam and eve, that would mean one race. evidence confirming a young universe. i can't go through all of those. couple of them we'll look at briefly. after their kind, evidence confirming that. in the creation museum, we have
featuring replicas darwin finches. we see the different species here. from the specimen darwin obtained, he actually hunts these things and how do you explain this. in his notes, actually, he came up with this diagram here, a tree. he actually said, i think. he was talking about different species and maybe species came from common ancestors. when it comes to finches we would agree that different species came from a common ancestors but a finch. see, darwin wasn't just think being species. darwin had a much bigger picture in mind. when you look the origin of species and read that book, you'll find he made this statement. from such low and immediate form, both animals and plants might have been developed, we
must admit all organic beings maybe descended from one form. he had in mind what we today know as an evolution tree of life. that all life has risen from some form. now when you consider the classification system, we would say as creationist, we have many creationist scientists research this, to say, the kind genesis one is the family of classification. for instance one dog kind, one cat kind. that would mean, by the way, you need anywhere near the number of animals on the arc you would need. you didn't need all the species of dog, just two. based on the biblical account there in genesis one, they are saying look, there's great variation in the genetics of
dogs and finches, over time, particularly after noah's ark, you would expect there are two dogs. you can end up with different species of dogs. you'd expect these different species up here but there's limits. dogs will always be dogs and finches will always be finches. as a creationist, i maintain observational science firm this model based on the bible. for instance, take dogs in january 2014, scientists working at the university of california stated this. we provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin of dog and disfavoring alternative models which dogs arrive separate federal geographically distinct population. they put that diagram in the paper. that diagram is similar to this
diagram that creationest proposed based upon the creation account in genesis. you have a common dog that give rise to the different species of dogs. that's exactly what we're saying here. in the creation museum, we're showing the finches here. by the way, there's more variation in the dog here than there are in these finches. yet, the dogs that's never used as example of evolution but the finches are. in public school textbook, students are taught see the changes occurring here. here's another problem, not only has the word science been hijacked by secularrest, i believe the word evolution has been hijacked by secularist. the word evolution has been hijacked using what i call a bait and switch. let me explain to you, the word evolution has been used in public school textbooks it's used for observable changes that we would agree with and use
unobservable changes such as molecules to man. let me explain to you what's going on. i was a science teacher in public school and i know what the children were taught. students are taught today, there's all of these different animals plant but they're all part of that big tree of life that goes back to some form. we see changes in finches and dogs. we don't deny the changes. then that put it all together in that evolution tree. that's what you don't observe. that's belief there. that's historical science. i will say it's wrong. what you do observe, you do observe different species of dogs, different species of finches, but then there are limits. you don't see one kind changing into another. actually, we're told that if you teach creation in the public schools -- i'm going to say wait
a minute, actually, the creation model here based upon the bible observational science confirms this. this is what you observe. you don't observe this tree. actually it's a public school textbook that are teaching i believe imposing it on students and they need to be teaching them observational science to understand the reality of what's happening. what we found is that public -- so public school textbooks are rejecting observational science and imposing a naturalistic religion on students. word evolution has been hijacked using a bait and switch to indoctrinate students. let me introduce you to another scientists, richard lenski. he found there was some e. coli
seem so develop. richard lenski, as he mentioned in this book, it's called "evolution in the lab." the ability to grow on -- for instance, jerry coin from university of chicago says, lenski's experiment is another poke in the eye of evolutionist. is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionist? is it really seeing on inflict -- let me introduce you to another biblical creationist who is a scientists. >> my name is dr. andrew fabich.
i do research on e. coli. i have published in secular journalist including infection unity. while i was taught nothing but evolution, i don't accept that position. do i my research from a creation perspective. when i look at the evidence, e. coli supposedly evolving over 30 years in the lab. people say it is now able to grow in citrate. it's not any type of new information. it's just a switch that gets turned on and off. that's what they reported in
there. there's nothing new. >> students need to be told what's going on here. certainly there's change but it's not changing necessarily for molecule to man. we can look at other protections. what about everyday confirming one race. let me look at the human population. based upon darwin's idea on human evolution, darwin did teach, there are lower racist and higher racist. would i believe back in the 1900's, one of the biology textbooks used in the public schools in america thought this. at the present time there exist on earth five races and the highest type of all the caucasians. can you imagine if that was in the public schools today? yet that's what it was taught. but it was based on darwin's ideas that are wrong. you have a wrong foundation. you're going to have a wrong world view. had they started from the bible and from the creation account in
the bible, what does it teach? we go through different languages and different people group form. we'd expect, that means it's biologically only race of human. you remember in year 2000, this was headlined news and what we read was this, they had put together a draft of the entire human genome and declared there was only one race, the human race. you see, there we have observational science confirming the creation account, not confirming at all darwin's ideas. now, there's much more that can be said on each of these topics. obviously you can't do that in a sort time like this. i suggest you visit our website for a lot more information. the debate topic is creation a bible model of origins in
today's scientific era. we need to define the term. in particularly the term science and the term evolution and i believe we need to understand how they're being used to impose anti-god religion on generation on students. i keep emphasizing, we do need to understand the difference between experimental and observational science and historical science. the secularist don't like me doing this, they don't want to admit there is a belief aspect what they are saying. let me illustrate. this is a statement from bill nye. >> you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old. >> i believe agree. you can observe that. you can't observe the and of the earth. you don't see that. you see a gain. there's a big difference between historical science, talk the past and observational science talking about the present. i believe what's happening is
this, students are being indoctrinated by the confusion of terms. the hijacking of the word science and evolution in a bait and switch. let me illustrate further with this video clip. here, i assert bill nye is equating observational science with historical science. i also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference. >> people with these deeply held religious beliefs, they embrace literal interpretation of the bible. at the same time, they accept aspirin, antibiotic drugs and airplane. this is a mystery. >> i suggest it's not a mystery. what i'm talking about antibiotic, aspirins, smoke detector, jet planes that's observational science slope. i'm an australian.
when you talking about creation and thousands of years of the age of earth, that's by historical science. when bill nye is talking about aspirin and smoke detectors, great job of that. that's bill nye observational science guy. when he's talking about evolution a million year, that's bill nye historical science guy. i challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief aspect of their particular world view. at the creation museum, we also teach people the difference between belief and what one can actually observe and experiment with the present. i believe we're teaching people to criticize critically and think in the right terms about the science. i think it's the creationist that should be educating the kids out there because we're teaching them the right way to think. we admit origins of historical science is based upon the bible.
i'm challenging evolutionist to admit the aspects and be up front. i will admit my historical science based on the bible. let me define the term creation as we use it. by creation, we mean here the answer is in genesis, we mean the account based upon the bible. i take genesis as literal history as jesus did. we walk people through that history. we walk them through creation, god made adam and eve and sea creatures and so on. sin and death entered the world. there was no death before sin. then, catastrophe of flood. what do you find?
billions buried god gave different languages and he gave different people group. this is the history as recorded in the bible. this is concerning what happened in the past that explains the present. of course that god son stepped into history, jesus christ died on the cross and raised from the dead and one day there's going ton a new heaven andearth to come. not only is this a understanding of history to connect the presence with the past, it's also a announce for our world view. for instance, in matthew 19 when -- said for this course, shall a man and father be joined with his wife and be one. god invented marriage, by the way, that's what marriage comes from and to be a man and a
woman. not any marriage, every single biblical doctrine of theology is found in genesis. why is there sin in the world, genesis, why is there death, genesis, why did jesus die on the cross, genesis. it's important book. it's foundation of christian doctrine. when we look at seven seas of history, think about how to all connects together. a perfect creation. sin and death entered the world, that's why god's son died on the cross and to conquer death. a reminder that the flood was a judgment because of man's wickedness but at the same time god salvation. we need to go through a door to be saved. jesus christ said i am the door. we make no apology about the fact in we're on about is this, if you confess with your mouth
lord jesus, you will be saved. people say, see, if you allow creation in schools, if you have students hear about it, this is religion. let me illustrate this talking about the recent battle in texas over textbooks in the public schools. newspaper report said this, textbook in classroom have long ranged in texas pitting creationist against academics. notice creationist, academics. creationist can't be academics. it's the way things are worded out there. it's an indoctrine nation going on. you're talking about what you observe, or you talking about your beliefs about the past. cathy miller is the president of the freedom texas network. she vocally spoken out about this textbook battle there in
texas. the mission statement of the organization she's president of, says the texas freedom network advances mainstream agenda of religious freedom. she makes this statement, science education, should be based on mainstream science education not on personal ideological beliefs. they want religious liberty and not personal ideological belief. public school textbooks are using science for observational and historical science. they define science as naturalism. they are imposing the religion of natural itch on generation of students. they are imposing their ideology on the students. that is a religion. what do you mean by religious liberty, they tolerate their religion. the battle is really about authority. it's more than just science or evolution or creation. it's about who's the authority
in this world, man or god? you start with naturalism then what about morals? who decides right and wrong? it's subjective, marriage. what do you want it to be? get rid of old people, why not. they're costing us a lot of money, abortion, get rid of spare cats and spare kids. god decides right and wrong, marriage, one man and one woman. we are made in the image of god. abortion is killing human being. we do see the collapse of christian morality in our culture and increasing moral relativism. again, i say, creation is the viable model of historical science. i'm a science teacher, i want to see kids -- if we teach them the
whole universe is result of natural process and not designed by god, they might be looking in the wrong places or have the wrong idea when they're looking a the creation in regard to how you develop technology. if they're looking at random processes that can totally influence the way they think. if they understand it's a perfect world by sin, that can have great effect how they look for over coming diseases and problems in the world. i want children to be taught the right foundation that there's a god who created them, who loves them and who died on the cross for them and they are special and made in the image of god. >> thank you mr. ham. it did occur to me when you had my old friend larry king up
there, you could have asked him. he's been around far long time. he's a smart guy. he can probably answer for all of us. now, all of attention to mr. nye. >> thank you very much. mr.ham, i learned something. thank you. let's take it back around to the question at hand. does ken ham's creation model hold up? is it viable? for me, of course, take a look. we are here in kentucky on layer upon layer of limestone. i stopped at the sight of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. in these many layers, in this vicinity of kentucky, there are quarrel animals, fossil. when you look at it closely, you can see they lived their entire lives. they lived typically 20 years,
sometimes more than that. we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. how could those animals have lived their entire life and form these layers in just 4000 years? there isn't enough time since mr. ham's flood for this limestone that we're standing on to have come into existence. my scientific colleagues go to places like greenland, the arctic, they go to antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits. it's not that extraordinary. many of you probably done it yourself to put locks and doors for example. we pull out long sill len dar
-- cylinders of ice. they are crushed by subsequent layers. they are crushed together tracking little bubbles. the little bubble need to be ancient atmosphere. there's nobody with a needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. how could it be that just 4000 years ago all of this ice formed. let's just run some numbers. this is some scene from antarctic. we have 680 layers of snow ice and 4000 years since the great flood. that would mean we need 170 winter summer cycles every year for the last 4000 years.
wouldn't someone have noticed that? wow. wouldn't someone have noticed there's been winter and summer 170 times one year? if we go to california, we find bristle cone pines. some of them are over 680,000 years old. there's old tjikko over 9550 years old. how can these trees about there if there was a flood just 4000 years ago. you can try this yourself everybody. i don't mean to be mean to trees. get a sapling and put it under water for a year. it would not survive in general nor would it cede. how could these trees about that old if the earth is only 4000 years old?
when we go to the grand canyon which is an astonishing place, i recommend to everybody in the world to visit the grand canyon. you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. if there was this enormous flood that you speak of, wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling. how would they settle out. your claim they settle out in a short amount of time is not satisfactory. in this picture, one type of sediment intruded on another type. if that was uniform, wouldn't you expect it all to be even
without intrusion? furthermore you can find places in the grand canyon where you see an ancient river bed on that side and an ancient river bed on that side and the colorado river has cut through it. by the way, if this great flood drained through the grand canyon, wouldn't there have been a grand canyon on every continent? how can we not have grand canyons everywhere if this water drained away in that extraordinary short amount of time, 4000 years. when you look at these layerers carefully, you'll find these beautiful fossils. you find down low, you'll find what you might consider is rudimentary sea animals. up above you'll find the famous bites and clams and oysters and above that you'll find some
mammals. you never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. you never find a lower one trying to swim its way to a higher. if it all happen such a extraordinary short amount of time, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence? by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you. they would embrace you, you would be a hero. you would change the world if you can find one example of that anywhere. people have looked and looked, have not found a single one. here's an interesting thing. these are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world. it's by no means representative of all the foss sell skulls that have been found but these are all over the place. if you were to look at these, i
can assure you not any of them is a gorilla. if as mr. ham and his associates claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there was just humans and all the species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls? how did all of these skulls get all over the earth and these extraordinary fashion, where would you put us? i can tell you we are on there. i encourage you when you go home to look it up. now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with mr. ham's world view, is that this giant boat, very large wooden ship went aground safely on a mountain in the middle east. places like australia are
populated then by animals who somehow managed to get from the middle east all the way to australia in the last 4000 years. now that toe me is an extraordinary claim. we expect them somewhere to find evidence of kangaroos. we expect to find some fossils or bones. somebody would have died along there. furthermore, there's a claim dallas a -- there's a land bridge. and that land bridge has disappeared in the last 4000 years. no navigator, no diver, no u.s. navy submarine. no one detected any evidence of this. your expectation is not met. it doesn't seem to hold up.
there are 4000 years since ken ham's flood. let's say as he said many times there are 7000 times today the very lowest estimate is there are about 8.7 million species but a much more reasonable estimate is 50 million or even a hundred million. when you start counting viruses and bacteria and the beetles in the tropical rain forest we haven't found. we'll take a number i think is pretty reasonable, 16 million species today. if these came from 7000 times, let's say we have 7000 subtracted from 15 million, that's 15993 we have have 365 and a quarter days in a year, we'd expect to find 11 million new species everyday.
you go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird. you find a different kind of bird. whole new species a bird everyday. a new species of fish, new species of organs you can't see. this would be enormous news, the last 4000 years. people would have seen these changes among us. the cincinnati inquirer would carrier a column right next to the weather report. we see no evidence of that. there's no evidence of these species. there simply isn't enough time. as you may know i graduated from engineering school and i got a job at boeing. i worked on 747's. everybody relax, i was very well supervised. everything is fine. there was a tube in the 747 i think of my tube. that aside, i traveled the
highways of washington state quite a bit. i was a young guy. he a motorcycle. i used to go mountain climbing in washington state and oregon. you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground. enormous rocks, huge sitting on top of the ground. out there in regular academic pursuits, regular geology, people have discovered that there was -- used to be a lake what is now montana. which we refer to as lake massua. it's not there. the evidence is overwhelming. an ice damn would form. when you drive along the road and there are these rocks.
if as is asserted here at this facility, that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event, the big rocks and especially their shape instead of aero dynamic the hydro dynamic, the water changes shape. you expect them to sink to the bottom. here are these enormous rocks right on the surface. there's no shortage of them. if you go driving in washington state and oregon, they are readily available. how could those be there if the earth is just 4000 years old? if this one flood cause that? another remarkable thing i like everybody to consider, along inherent in this world view is that somehow, noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individuals. there are 7000 kinds and there's
a boy and girl for each one of those. so it's about 14,000 people. these people were unskilled as far as anybody know, they never built a wooden ship. they had to get all of these animals on them and had to feed them. understand mr. ham have some explanations for that, which i frankly find extraordinary. this is the premise of the bit. ...
taken by spacecraft in space orbiting the earth. this place is often deeply concerning for how it treats its animals. the reason that they were able to maintain 14,000 animals and their cells and feed them. aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone has been able to build. science, science is practiced on the outside. is an ability to predict. we want to have a natural law , so is so obvious and clear
well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen. we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of washington, d.c. and predict if we provide this much room for an elephant it will live healthily for certain amount of time. i will give you an example. the explanation provided by traditional science of how we came to be, we find as mr. hamm alluded to -- a sequence of animals in what generally is called the fossil record. you find a sequence of animals, a succession. as one might expect when you're looking at old records there is some pieces seem to be missing. a gap. scientists got to thinking about this.
they are frogs and toes -- toads. people wondered if there was not a fossil or an organism, and animal that had lived who had characteristics of both. people over the years had found a canada there was clearly fossil marsh. a place that used to be a swamp dried out and they found all sorts of happy swamp fossils animals and and fish that were recognized. people realized with the age of the rocks as computed by traditional scientists this would be a reasonable place to look for in animal, a fossil of an animal that lived there. they found several specimens.
they made a prediction this animal would be found and it was found. it cannot make predictions and show results. here is an externally one that i find corruptible. fish that havein them are -- remarkable ability ,o have sex with other fish traditional fish sex and they can have sex with themselves. one of the old questions in life science, everybody, one of the chin stroker's is why does any ashnism whether you are and tree or ec jelly, a squid, apartment, why does anyone have sex?
in youre more bacteria tummy right now than there are humans on earth. bacteria do not bother with that. they can split themselves and half and getter done, let's go. aroseof all the trouble a flower to to make and thorns, why does anybody bother with all that? the answer seems to be your enemies and your enemies are not lions and tigers and bears. oh my. no. your enemies are germs and parasites. that is what is going to get you. germs and parasites. my first cousin's son died tragically from essentially the flu. this is not some story i heard of. this apparently the virus had the right genes to attack so when you have sex you have a new
set of genes, a new mixture. people studied these top men knows and they found the one to reproduce sexually had fewer parasites than the ones that reproduced on their own. this black spot disease. there is more. any populations with putting and so on when river pound -- ponds get isolated and the river flows again, in between some of these fish will have sex with other fish sometimes and they will have sex on their own that happens asexually. in this fish the ones that are in between, they have an intermediate number of infections. the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction and the prediction or -- prediction is extraordinary and subtle but there it is. how else would you explain it? and to mr. hamm and his followers this is something that we in science one.
want the ability to predict and your assertion that there is some difference between the natural laws they used to observe the world today and the natural laws that existed 4000 ago is extraordinary and unsettling. around and i have a great many family members in danville, virginia. one of the u.s.'s most livable cities, it is lovely. and thereting along was a sign in front of a church from a big bang theory, you got to be kidding me, god. why would someone at the church, unlessput that sign up he or she did not believe the big day was a real thing. i want to review briefly with everybody why we except in the outside world, why we except the big bang.
hubble -- there you go. you got to be kidding me, god. in when hubble -- edwin was pasadena. you can see where the rose parade goes. in the early 1900s, the people who selected the site-excellent site. the clouds and smog are below you and edwin hubble sat there at this very big telescope studying the heavens. he found the stars are moving apart. the stars are moving apart. but it wassure why clear that the stars are moving further apart all the time. so people talked about it for a couple of decades. and eventually another astronomer almost a couple of
decades -- fred hoyle remarked it was like there was a big bang. there was an explosion. this is to say since everything is moving apart it is reasonable that it one time they were altogether. there is a place from whence or whence these things expanded and it was a remarkable insight. people went still questioning it decades. conventional scientists have been questioning it for decades. these two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space. radio astronomy. this is why we have visible light for our eyes and there's a whole other bunch of waves of light that are much longer. the microwaves in your oven or about that long. the radar at the airport is about that long. your fm radio signal is about like this. are the size of several soccer fields. they went
out listening and there was this hiss that would not go away. the thought there were some loose connector. they re-screwed it and made it type. they thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this horn, it is called. this thing is still hair -- is still there. it is at a national historic site. this cosmicnd background sound that was predicted by astronomers. astronomers running the numbers, doing math, predicted that in the cosmos would be left over this echo, this energy from the big bang that would be detectable and they detected it. we built the cosmic observatory for background emissions, the kobe spacecraft and it matched
'xactly the astronomers predictions. along that line is some interest in the age of the earth. right now it is generally agreed that the big bang happened their team .7 billion years ago. what we can do on earth, these elements that we all know on the periodic table of chemicals, even ones we do not now were created when stars explode. attended a lecture by hans ata. the ones that interest me are our good friends rubidium and strontium. -- he comes a proton and goes up the periodic table.
rock and locks the rubidium and strontium into place so by careful assay, by careful by being diligent, you can tell when the rock froze. you can tell how old the rubidium and strontium are and you can get an age for the earth. when that stuff falls on fossils , you can get a very good idea of how old the fossils are. i encourage you all to go to nebraska on go to ash fall state park and see the astonishing fossils. it looks like a hollywood movie. there are rhinoceroses and three toed horses in nebraska. none of those animals are extant today and they were buried catastrophically by a volcano in illest onw idaho, park. it is a remarkable thing. i can tell you as a northwestern are from around mount saint
helens, i am on the mount saint helens board. when it goes off the gives a great deal of gas. it is toxic and knocks these animals off. the go to a watering hole and then when the ash comes they were all buried. it is an extreme replace. if in the bad old days you had heart problems, they would write away cut you open. now we use a drug based on rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you open. friends, i want you to consider this. right now, there is no place in the commonwealth of kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine. this kind of drugs associated with that. i hope you find that troubling. i hope you're concerned about that. ally literatentific students in the commonwealth for
buddy. you can i get this here. he have to go out of state. stars,as the distance to understand, this is very well understood. it is february. we look at a star in february and measure and a goal and wait six months, we look at that same star again and we measure that angle. it is the same way that carpenters built this old thing and surveyors survey the land. you can figure out how far away it is, that star and the stars beyond it and the stars beyond that. there are billions of stars. aliens of stars, more than 6000 light years from here. a light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time. there are billions of stars. how could there be billions of stars more distant than 6000 years if the world is only 6000 years old western market is an extra night claim. there is another astronomer who remarked first about the
reasonable man. is it reasonable older by ae ice factor of 100 then you claim the earth is? we have trees that have more tree rings in the earth is old. we have rocks with rubidium and strontium and uranian-uranium and potassium argon dating that are far older than you claim the earth is. could anyone have built an ark that would sustain better than any other ark anyone was able to build. so if you are asking me and i got the impression you were, is the creation model viable? i say no. absolutely not. one last thing. you may not know that in the u.s. constitution and the founding fathers, it is the sentence to promote the progress ,f science and useful arts kentucky voters. voters who might be watching
online in places like texas, tennessee, oklahoma, kansas. you do not want to raise a generation of science students who do not understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space. who do not understand natural law. we need to innovate to keep the u.s. where it is in the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> that is a lot to take in. i hope everyone is holding up well. that is a lot of information. there is a five-minute rebuttal time for each to address the other one's comments and there will be a five-minute counter rebuttal after that. things will start moving quickly ifthis point in particular. you would like to begin with your five-minute rebuttal first.
>> i will deal with some of them. i will -- you mentioned the igf a couple of times. you cannot observe the age of the earth and i would say that comes under what we call historical origin science. to understand where i'm coming built our origins with historical science on the bible. was used that means an ordinary day. when you add up the genealogies, from adam abraham, you have got the resin.to
that is how we get 6000 years. there is where it comes from just so you know. a lot of people say by the way the earth's ages 4.5 billion years old. we have radioactive decay dating methods that found that. the rate of observe decay. whether there is uranium or lead or potassium argon. when you talk about the past we have a problem. in australia there were engineers that were trying to search for coal mine. when dr. andrew spelling said that to a lab in massachusetts, the used potassium argon dating. he also sent the woods to the radiocarbon section and they
were dated 40,000 -- 45,000. there is a problem. let me give you another example. forming a lot the dome after mount saint helens corrupted. a geologist sampled the rock there. encrusted andck sent it to the same lab created and got a date of 3.5 million years when he separated the gotrals out and used -- he 2.8 million. all these dating methods give all sorts of different dates. show two different dates. there is a lot of assumptions. the amounts of the parent and are isotopes in the beginning. allmption number two,
daughter atoms measured must have been derived in situ there is a decay. lot of evidence that is not so. three, thenumber decay rates remained constant. assumptions. of dating unit you can use. of christians out there who believe in millions of years. i am not saying they are not christian. there is an inconsistency with what the bible teaches. if you believe in millions of death andas got bloodshed, suffering, disease because that is what you see in the fossil record. death is the result of man's sin. the bible makes it clear.
sacrifice pointing toward what happened with jesus christ. if you believe in millions of years as a christian in the fossil record there is evidence of animals eating each other. beginningsays in the man and animals were vegetarian. -- there ares fossilized torrence in the record. lawrence came after the curse. these two things cannot be true at the same time. there is hundreds of dating methods out there. 90% of them contradict billions of years. the point is also stating records are not infallible. say that the earth is
only 6000 years. there is nothing in astronomy. and the thing in geology to contradict of a leaf and a young age for the year -- earth and the universe. pre-k's a five-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. let me start at the beginning. old you find a 45 million rock on top of the trees, maybe the rock slid on top. that seems a much more reasonable explanation then it is impossible. thear as dating goes methods are very reliable. one of the mysteries or interesting things that people in my business especially at the planetary society are interested, why all the asteroids seem to be so close to the same date. in age. years, 4.6 billion. people expect there is more of a spread. i understand that you take the
bible as written in glacier and theslate it many times over last three millennia. it has to be the more accurate, the more reasonable assessment of the natural laws we see. that to me is unsettling, troubling. , havethe disease thing the fish centers done something wrong -- were they centers to get diseases? that is an extra ordinary claim that takes me past where i am come to bowl. as far as you cannot observe the past, i have to stop you right there. that is what we do in astronomy. all we can do is look at the past. by the way, you're looking at the past right now. the speed of light bounces off of me and gets to your eyes.
i am delighted to see that people in the back of the room appear that much younger than the people in the front. separate that you can the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now is at the heart of our disagreement. i do not see how we're going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. it is magical for lack of a better word. i have appreciated magic since i was a kid but it is not what we want in conventional mainstream science. that all then forals were vegetarians are the got on the arc, that is remarkable. i have not spent a lot of time with lyons but i can tell they have got teeth that are not set up for broccoli.
that these animals were until this flood. it is something i would ask you to private -- provide proof for. -- lionsu the lyons' teeth. that is not enough evidence for me. if you ever played telephone, we'd have a secret and whispered to the next person to the next and things often go wrong. it is reasonable to me that instead of lyons being vegetarians on the ark, lions are lyons and the information that you use to create your consistent with i is a reasonable man would expect. consider theody to implications of this. ham'st mr. him --
point of view that the bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you. you to consider what that means. or hiss that his word interpretation of these other words is somehow to be more canected than what you observe in nature. what you can find in your backyard and kentucky. and unsettling point of view and it is one i would like you to address when you the five. as far as races that you mentioned, it is kind of the same thing. the five races were claimed by people who were of european descent and they said we are the best, check us out and that turns out to be if you have
traveled anywhere or done anything not to be that way. he bought much more alike than they are different. i we supposed to take your word instead of what we can observe in the universe around us? >> would you like to offer your five-minute counter rebuttal question mark -- counter ?ebuttal inside in thes basal. t. thatis why i was making point. i said we had the rules of logic, the uniformity of nature. that makes sense within a biblical worldview anyway. we can go to experimental silent -- science because we assume those laws are true and they will be tomorrow.
i do want to say this. his -- kenfew times ham's view or model. some video quotes from scientists. -- there are a lot of creation scientists who agree with what we're saying concerning the bible and the bible's cap -- account of creation. it is not just my model in that sense. .here is so much i could say as i listened to you i believe you are confusing terms and regrind -- regard to species and times. we are not saying god created species, he created kind.
we are not saying species got on the ark, we are saying kind. there is a number of papers on dogs and thisth one breach with this one and you can look at the papers around the world and connect them and said -- say that represents one kind. they have predicted probably less than 1000 kinds were on noah's ark. under 2000 animals. there was plenty of room on the ark. a lot of what you were saying was illustrating my point. you were talking about tree rings and ice layers and kangaroos getting to australia and all sorts of things. we are talking about the past. we did not see those tree rings .orming
if you assume one layer a year to much it is like the dating method. you are assuming things in regard to the past that are not necessarily true. lions andregard to teeth. are primarily vegetarian. effort that has sharp teeth. it looks like a savage little creature and it rips and different. just because it has sharp teeth aesn't mean that it is mediator. regard to the --[inaudible] flood was a catastrophic
event. i was notyou say no skilled? i did not meet him. it is an evolutionary view of origins because you are thinking that people before us are not as good as us. they were civilizations that existed in the past and we cannot understand how they did some of the things they did. who says noah could not build the big boat? some of their research indicates that some of the wooden boats had three layers into locking so they would not twist like that and leak. we have an exhibit where we have rebuilt one percent of the ark to scale and shows three interlocking layers like that. concerning the speed of light, i am sure you are aware of the horizon problem. that is from a big bang perspective. even the secularists have a problem of getting light and
radiation out to the universe to exchange with the rest of the .niverse even background radiation. 15 billion years, they can only get it about half way and that is why they have inflation theories which means everyone has a problem concerning the light issue. people do not understand that we have some models on our website to help explain those sorts of things. your counter rebuttal. >> i am completely unsatisfied. in my view address fundamental questions. 680,000 years of snow ice layers which require winter-summer cycles for let's say you have 2000 kinds instead of seven, that makes the problem even more extraordinary. all flying 11 by 3.5. we get to 35, 40 species every day that we do not see. they are not extent. we are losing species due to
mostly human activity and loss of habitat. as far as know of being an myraordinary shipwright, family spend their whole life learning to make ships. tois very reasonable perhaps you that noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members but to me it is not reasonable. way: the fundamental thing we disagree on is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. this is to say when people make radiometricbased on data, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of act. laboratory growth media, they're
making assumptions based on previous experience. they are not coming out of whole cloth. chance toyou have a speak, i encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed 4000 years ago completely and there is no there are pyramid said her older than that. there are human populations that are far older than that. with traditions that go back farther than that and it is not reasonable that everything changed for thousand years ago. by everything i mean the species, the surface of the sky, ande stars in the the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it is not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. another thing i would very much appreciate you addressing mode
there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious and i respect that. people get tremendous community and comfort and nurture and support from their religious fellows in their communities and faves and churches. they do not accept your point of view. do notre christians who accept that the earth could be this extraordinarily young age because of all the evidence around them. what is to become of them? in your view? this thing started as i , based on the old testament. when you bring in i am not a theologian, when you bring in the new testament, it is and that a little out-of-the-box? i am looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it. based on what i am going to call science,not historical
not observational science. things that each of us can do akin to what we do. we try to out guess the characters on murder mystery or crime scene investigations especially. what is to become of all those people who do not see it your way? for us in the scientific community, i remind you that when we find an idea that is not tenable, it does not work, it does not fly, it does not hold water, whatever it him you would like to embrace, we throw it away. we are delighted. if you can find a fossil that is between the layers, bring it on. if you could show that the microwave background radiation is not a result of the big bang, kaman. writer paper, tear it up. your view that we are supposed to take your word for this book
written centuries ago, translated into american english is somehow more important than what i can see with my own eyes is next ordinary claim. for those watching online especially i want to remind you that we need scientists and especially engineers for the future. engineers use science to solve problems and make things. we need these people so the u.s. can continue to innovate and be a world reader. we need innovation and that needs science education. thank you. >> thank you both. thingsgoing to get moving faster. i think they might be quite interesting. questions and answers submitted by our audience. we handed out these cards to everyone. i shuffled them and the back and i dropped a lot of them and skip them up again and to view summary sorting through them here he was to get a pile for
each so we can alternate reasonably between them. the reason i will skip over one if i cannot read it or if it is a question i do not know how to read because it does not seem to have sense. what is going to happen is we will go back and forth between ham.igh -- nye and mr. the other will have one minute to answer the question. ham, you have been a first. can stand by. how does creationism account for celestial bodies moving farther apart and what function does that serve in the grand design? >> when it comes to looking at the universe, we believe that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth and creationist astronomers say you
can observe the inverse expanding. he it says he stretches out the heavens and seems to indicate that there is an expansion of the adverse. we would say yeah, you can observe that in that fits with observational science. i cannot answer that question. the bible says god made the heavens for his glory and that is why he made the stars that we see out there. it is to tell us how great he is. one of our programs looks at this when you see how large the universe is and it shows us how great god is. how big he is and he is and all-powerful god and infinite, all-knowing god who created the universe to show us his power. can you imagine that westmark the thing that is remarkable as
it says on the fourth day of creation, he made the stars also. so much like by the way. he is an all powerful god. he made the stars and made them show us how great he is. the more they understand what that means is god is all-powerful, infinite, you realize how small he wouldd realize consider this planet is so significant that he created .uman beings here that is what i would say when i see the adverse as it is. >> one minute. and your response? >> there is a question that troubles us all from the time we able togest and first think. that is where did we come from? where did i come from?
this question is so compelling that we have invented the science of astronomy. we have invented life science, we have invented physics. we discovered these natural laws we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. says he invented the stars also, that is satisfying. you are done. to me when i look at the night sky i want to know what is out there. i am driven. i want to know what is out there is any part of me and indeed, it is. by the way, i find compelling you are satisfied. and the big thing i want from you mr. ham is can you come up with something that you can predict. do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature? >> how did the atoms that created the big bang get there?
>> this is a great mystery. you hit the nail on the head. what was before the big bang? this is what drives us. this is what we want to know. let's keep looking. let's keep searching. when i was young, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down. there's the big bang. except it's in outer space, there's no air so...goes out like that and so people presumed that it would slow down. that the universe, the gravity especially will hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again and people went out and the mathematical expression is is the universe flat. it's a mathematical expression. will the universe slow down, slow down as...without ever stopping? well in 2004 saul perlmutter and his colleagues went looking for the rate at which the universe was slowing down. we're going to, let's go out and measure it and we do it with these extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae. these are standard brightness that you can infer distances
with and the universe isn't slowing down. it's accelerating. the universe is accelerating in its expansion. and you know why? nobody knows why. nobody knows why. and you'll hear the expression nowadays dark energy, dark matter which are mathematical ideas that seem to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies and their expansion and then isn't it reasonable that whatever's out there causing the universe to expand is here also and we just haven't figured out how to detect it. my friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that deep question. where did we come from? what was before the big bang? to us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. this is what makes us get up and go to work everyday is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe.
>> bill, i just want to let you know that there's actually a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from and the very first sentence in that book says "in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth." and really, that's the only thing that makes sense. it's the only thing that makes sense of why not just matter is here, where it came from but why matter when you look at it, we have information and language systems that build life, not just matter. and where did that come from because matter can never produce information. matter can never produce a language system. language can only come from intelligence. information only comes from information. the bible tells us that the things we see like in the book of hebrews are made from things that are unseen. an infinite creator god who created universe, created matter, the energy, space, mass, time, universe and created the information for life. it's the only thing that makes logical sense.
>> the overall majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid, physical evidence such as carbon dating and fossils to support evolutionary theory. what evidence besides the literal word of the bible supports creationism? >> first of all, you know, i often hear people talking about the majority. i would agree that the majority of scientists would believe in millions of years. the majority would believe in evolution but there's a large group out there that certainly don't. but the first thing i want to say is that it's not the majority that judge the truth. there have been many times in the past when the majority have got it wrong. the majority of doctors in england once thought that after you cut up bodies, you can go...and wonder why the death rate is high in hospitals until they found out about a disease caused by bacteria and so on. the majority once thought that the appendix was a leftover organ from evolutionary ancestors.
when it's okay, rip it out. when it's diseased, rip it out. these days, we know that it's for the immune system and it's very, very important. it's important to understand that just because the majority believes something doesn't mean that it's true. one of the things i was doing was i was making some predictions. i made some predictions. there's a whole list of predictions. and i was saying if the bible is right, there's adam and eve, there's one race and i talked about that. if the bible is right, god made kinds and i went through and talked about that and so you know really that question comes down to the fact that we're
again dealing with the fact that there's aspects about the past that you can't scientifically prove because you weren't there but observational science in the present. bill and i have all the same observational science. we're here in the present. we can see radioactivity but when it comes to talking about the past, you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that. that's what we need to admit. but we can be great scientists in the present as the examples i gave you. dr. damadian , or dr. stuart burgess or dr. fobich and we can be investigating the present. understanding the past is a whole different matter. >> thank you mr. ham. i have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea. if a scientist, if anybody makes a discovery that changes the way people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her. this person's fantastic. louis pasteur, he made reference to germs. if you find something that changes, that disagrees with common thought, that's the
greatest thing going in science. we look forward to that change. we challenge you. tell us why the universe is accelerating. tell us why these mothers were getting sick and we'll find an explanation for it. the idea that the majority has sway in science is true only up to a point and then the other thing i just want to point out, what you may have missed in evolutionary explanations of life is the mechanism by which we add complexity. the earth is getting energy from the sun all the time. and that energy is used to make lifeforms somewhat more complex. >> how did consciousness come from matter? >> i don't know. this is a great mystery. a dear friend of mine is a neurologist. she studies the nature of consciousness. now i will say i used to embrace a joke about dogs. i love dogs, who doesn't. and you can say this guy
remarked "i've never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt." actually, i have. furthermore, the thing that we celebrate. there are three sundials on the planet mars that bear an inscription to the future. to those who visit here, we wish you safe journey and the joy of discovery. it's inherently optimistic. that the future of human kind that we will one day walk on mars. but the joy of discovery. that's what drives us. the joy of finding out what's going on. so we don't know where consciousness comes from but we want to find out. furthermore, i tell you it's deep within us. i claim that i've spent time with dogs. that i've had the joy of discovery. it's way inside us. we have one ancestor as we can figure. and by the way, if you can find what we in science call a second genesis. this is to say did life start another way in the earth? there are researchers, with dogs. astro-biology researchers supported by nasa, your tax dollars that are looking for an answer to that very question. is it possible that life can start another way? is there some sort of a lifeform
akin to science fiction that's crystal instead of membranes. this would be a fantastic discovery that would change the world. the nature of consciousness is a mystery. i challenge the young people here to investigate that very question. and i remind you, taxpayers and voters that might be watching, if we do not embrace the process of science, i mean in the mainstream, we will fall behind economically. this is a point i can't say enough. >> bill, i want to say that there is a book out there that does document where of science, i mean in the mainstream, we will fall behind consciousness came from. and in that book, the one who created us said that he made man in his image and he breathe into man and he became a living being and so the bible does document that. that's where consciousness came from.
consciousness came from. that god gave it to us. and you know, one thing i want to say is i have a mystery. and that is you talk about the joy of discovery but you also say that when you die it's over and that's the end of you and if when you die it's over, you don't even remember you were here. what's the point of the joy of discovery anyway. i mean it in an ultimate sense. i mean, you know, you don't even know you were here. so what's the point anyway? i love the joy of discovery because this is god's creation and i'm finding more about that to take dominion for man's good and for god's glory. >> what if anything would ever change your mind? >> well, the answer to that question is "i'm a christian."
and as a christian, i can't prove it to you but god has definitely shown me very clearly through his word and shown himself in the person of jesus christ. the bible is the word of god. i admit that that's where i start from. i can challenge people that you can go and test that, you can make predictions based on that, you can check the prophecies in the bible, you can check the statements in genesis, you can check that and i did a little bit of that tonight. and i can't ultimately prove that to you. all i can do is to say to someone look if the bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the word of god and that's what it claims to be then check it out. if you can't believe that he is, he will reveal himself to you.
and you will know. as christians, we can say we know. and so as far as the word of god is concerned, no, no one's ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true. but i do want to make a distinction here and for bill's sake. we build models based upon the bible and those models are always subject to change. the fact of noah's flood is not subject to change. the model of how the flood occurred is subject to change because we observe in the current world and we're able to come up with maybe different ways this could've happened or that could've happened and that's part of that scientific discovery. that's part of what it's all about. so the bottomline is that as a christian, i have the foundation. that as a christian, i would ask bill the question what would change your mind? i mean you said even if you come to faith, you'd never give up believing in billions of years. i think i quoted you correctly saying something like that recently. so that would be my question to bill.
>> we would just need one piece of evidence. we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another. we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. we would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they're not. we would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4000 years instead of the extraordinary amount. we would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons. bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately. the question i have for you though fundamentally and for everybody watching "mr. ham, what can you prove? what you have done tonight is spend most of it, all the time, coming up with explanations about the past. what can you really predict? what can you really prove in a conventional scientific or in a conventional "i have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way i see it." this is very troubling to me.
>> outside of radiometric methods, what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the earth? >> the age of the earth. well, the age of stars. radiometric evidence is pretty compelling. also the deposition rates, it was lael a geologist who realized in my recollection he came up with the first use of the term deep time when people realized that the earth had to be much much older. and in a related story, there was a mystery as to how the earth could be old enough to allow evolution to have taken place. how could the earth possibly be three billion years old. lord calvin did a calculation that if the sun were made of coal and burning, it couldn't be more than a hundred thousand or so years old. but radioactivity was
discovered. radioactivity is why the earth is still as warm as it is. it's why the earth has been able to sustain it's internal heat all these millenia. and this discovery, it's something like this question without radiometric dating, how would you view the age of the earth. to me it's akin to the expression "well if things were any other way, things would be different." this is to say that's not how the world is. radiometric dating does exist. neutrons do become protons and that's our level of understanding today. the universe is accelerating. these are all provable facts. that there was a flood 4,000 years ago is not provable. in fact the evidence for me at least as a reasonable man is overwhelming that it couldn't possibly have happened. there's no evidence for it. furthermore, mr. ham you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls. there are many many steps in
what appears to be the creation or the coming into being of you and me. and those steps -- >> i just wanted people to understand too. when it comes to the age of the earth being billions of years, no earth rock was dated to get that date. they dated meteorites and because they assumed meteorites were the same age as the earth left out from the formation of the solar system, that's where they come from. people think they dated rocks on the earth that's four and a half billion years. that's just not true. and the other point that i was making and that is i said at the end of my first rebuttal time that there are hundreds of physical processes that set limits on the age of the earth. here's the point, every dating method involves a change with time and there are hundreds of them and if you assume what was
there to start with and if you assume something about the rate and you know about the rate, you make lots of those assumptions. every dating method has those assumptions. most of the dating methods, 90% of them contradict the billions of years. there's no absolute age dating method from scientific method because you can't prove scientifically young world. >> can you reconcile the change in the rate continents are now drifting versus how quickly they must have traveled at creation's 6,000 years ago? can you reconcile the speed in which continents are now
drifting today to the rate they would have traveled 6,000 years ago to which where we are now? >> this again illustrates exactly what i'm talking about in regard to historical science and observational science. we can look at continents today and we have scientists that have written papers about these on our website. i'm definitely not an expert in this area, i don't claim to be certainly we can see movements of plates today and if you look at those movements and if you assume at the way it's moving today the rate it's moving that it's always been that way in the past. see that's an assumption. that's the problem when it comes to understanding these things. you can observe movement but then to assume that it has always been like that in the past, that's historical science. and in fact, we would believe basically in catastrophic plate tectonics that as a result of the flood the time of the flood, there was catastrophic breakup of the earth's surface. and what we're seeing now is sort of a remnant of that movement.
and so we do not deny the movement. we do not deny plates. what we would deny is that you can use what you see today as a basis for just extrapolating into the past. it's the same with the flood. you can say that the layers today can only lay down slowly in places but if there was a global flood, that would have changed all of that. again, it's this emphasis on historical science and observational science. i would encourage people to go to our website in answers in genesis because we do have a number of papers. in fact, very technical papers. dr. john bumgardner is one who has written some very extensive work dealing with this very issue. on the basis of the bible, of course we believe that there's one continent to start with cause -- one place. so we do believe that the continent has split up. particularly the flood had a lot to do with that. >> it must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago before the existence of tectonic plates was proven.
if you go into a clock store and there's a bunch of clocks. they are not all going to say exactly the same thing. do you think that they are all wrong? the reason that we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart, one of the reasons is we see what's called sea floor spreading in the mid-atlantic. the earth's magnetic field has reversed over the millenia and as it does it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart. so you can measure how fast the continents were spreading. that's how we do it on the outside. as i say i lived in washington state when mt. st. helens exploded. that's a result of a continental plate going under another continental plate and cracking and this water-laden rock led to a steam explosion. that's how we do it on the outside. >> what's your favorite color?
>> i will go along with most people and say green. and it's an irony that green plants reflect green light. most of the light from the sun is green yet they're reflected. it's a mystery >> can i have three words since he had three hundred? observational science, blue. >> how do you balance the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics? what is the second law of thermodynamics? >> oh, the second law of thermodynamics is fantastic. and i call the words of eddington who said that if you had a theory that disagrees with isaac newton, that's a great theory. if you have a theory that disagrees with relativity, you've changed the world, that's great. but if your theory disagrees with the second law of thermodynamics, i can offer you no hope. i can't help you. and the second law of
thermodynamics is basically is where you lose energy to heat. this is why car engines are about 30% efficient. that's it, thermodynamically. that's why you want the hottest explosion you can get in the coldest outside environment. you have to have a difference between hot and cold and that difference can be assessed scientifically and mathematically with this word entropy, this disorder of molecules but the fundamental thing that this questioner has missed is that the earth is not a closed system. so there's energy pouring in here from the sun, if i may day and night, cause at night it's pouring in on the other side and so that energy is what drives living things on earth especially for in our case plants. by the way, if you're here in kentucky, about a third and maybe a half of the oxygen you breathe is made in the ocean by phyto plankton and they get
their energy from the sun so the second law of thermodynamics is a wonderful thing. it has allowed us to have everything you see in this room. because our power generation depends on the robust and extremely precise computation of how much energy is in burning fuel whether it's nuclear fuel or fossil fuel or some extraordinary fuel to be discovered in the future. the second law of thermodynamics will govern any turbine that makes electricity that we all depend on and allowed all these shapes to exist. >> let me just say two things. one is you know what, here's a point that we need to understand, you can have all the energy that you want but energy on matter will never produce life. god imposed information,
language system, and that's how we have life. metabytes can never produce life no matter what energy you have. even if you have a dead stick. you can have all the energy in the world on the dead stick, it's going to decay. and it's not going to produce life. from a creationist's perspective, we certainly agree, i mean, before man sinned, you know there was digestion and so on but because of the fall now things are running down. god doesn't hold everything together as he did back then. so now we see in regard to the second law of thermodynamics, we'd say sort of in a sense a bit out of control now compared to what it was originally which is why we have a running down universe. >> hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the earth was older than 10,000 years and creation did not occur over 6 days, would you still believe in god and the historical jesus of nazareth and that jesus was the son of god?
>> well, i've been emphasizing all night. you cannot ever prove using the scientific method in the present. you can't prove the age of the earth. so you can never prove it's old. so there's no hypothetical because you can't do that. now, we can certainly use methods in the present in making assumptions. i mean creationists use methods that change over time. as i said, there's hundreds of physical processes that you can use to set limits on the age of the universe but you can't ultimately prove the age of the earth. not using the scientific method, you can't ultimately prove the age of the universe. now, you can look at methods and you can say that there are many methods that contradict billions of years, many methods that seem to support thousands of years as dr. faulkner said in the little video clip i showed you, there
is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe. i've said it to you before and i admit again that the reason i believe in a young universe is because of the bible's account of origins. i believe that god who has always been there, the infinite creator god revealed in his word what he did for us. and when we add up those dates we get thousands of years. but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. but as far as the age of the earth, the age of the universe, even when it comes to the fossil record, that's why i really challenge christians if you're going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record, you got a problem with the bible. and that is you're going to have death and disease and suffering before sin. so there's no hypothetical in regard to that. you can't prove scientifically the age of the earth or the universe, bottomline. >> of course, this is where we disagree. you can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by observing the universe around us. and i get the feeling mr. ham that you want us to take your word for it. this is to say your
interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago as translated into american english is more compelling for you than everything that i can observe in the world around me. this is where you and i, i think are not going to see eye to eye. you said, you asserted that life cannot come from something that is not alive, are you sure? are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on mars, that that's a waste. you're sure enough to claim that. that is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate. once again, what is it you can predict? what do you provide us that can tell us something about the future, not just about your vision of the past? >> is there room for god in science? >> well, we remind us, there are billions of people around the world who are religious and who
accept science and embrace it and especially all the technology that it brings us. is there anyone here who doesn't have a mobile phone that has a camera? is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine? is there anyone here who doesn't use emails or is there anybody here who doesn't eat? because we use information sent from satellites in space to plant seeds on our farms. that's how we are able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used to barely be able to feed a billion. so that's what i see. that's how we have used science and the process. science for me is two things. it's the body of knowledge. atomic number of rubidium. and it's the process, the means by which we make these discoveries. so for me, that's not -- that connected with your belief in a spiritual being or in a higher
power. if you reconcile those two, scientists, the head of the national institute of health is a devout christian. there are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. they have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. the exception is you, mr. ham. that's the problem for me. you want us to take your word for what's written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. the evidence for a higher power and spirituality is for me separate. i encourage you to take the next minute and address this problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers, this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the ark, i mean really address it. and so then we could move forward but right now i see no incompatibility between religions and science.
>> yeah, i actually want to take a minute to address the question. let me just say this, my answer would be god is necessary for science. in fact, you talked about cellphones, yeah i have a cellphone, i love technology. we love technology here in answers and genesis. and i have email. we have millions of them as we speak up here. and satellites, and what you said about the information we get, hey i agree with all that. see, they are the things that can be done in the present and that's just like i showed you. dr. burgess who invented that gear set for the satellite. creationists can be great scientists. but you see god is necessary because you have to assume the laws of logic. you have to assume the laws of nature. you have to assume the uniformity of nature. and here's a question i have for you. where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes? christianity and science, the bible and science go hand and hand. we love science. but then again, you gotta understand, inventing things, that's very different than
talking about our origins. two very different things. >> do you believe the entire bible is to be taken literally? for example, should people who touch pig's skin be stoned? can men marry multiple women? >> do i believe the entire should be taken literally? well, remember in my opening address, i said we have to define our terms. so when people are asked that question say literally, i have to know what that person meant by literally. now, i would say this, if you say naturally and that's what you mean by literally, i would say yes i take the bible naturally. what do i mean by that? well, if it's history as genesis is, it's written in typical historical narrative, you take it as history. if it's a poetry as we find in the psalms then you take it as poetry. it doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth but it's not a cosmological account in the sense that genesis is. there's prophecy in the bible and there's literature in the bible you know concerning future
events and so on so if you take it as written naturally according to literature and you let it speak to you in that way, that's how i take the bible. it's god's revelation to man. he used different people. the bible says that all scriptures are inspired by god so god moved by his spirit to write his words. and also there's a lot of misunderstanding in regard to scriptures, in regard to the israelites, i mean we have laws in our civil government here in america that the government sets. there were certain laws for israel. some people take that out of context and then they try to impose them on us today christians and say you should be obeying these laws. it's a misunderstanding of the old testament. it's a misunderstanding of the new testament and you know again it's important to take the bible as a whole in interpreting scriptures. if scriptures really is the word of god then there's not going to be any contradiction which says not, and by the way when men were married to multiple women there's lots of problems and the bible condemns that for what it is. and the bible is very clear. you know the bible is a real book, there are people who did
things that were not in accordance with the scriptures and they were recorded to help us understand it's a real book. but marriage was one man and one woman. jesus reiterated that in matthew 19 as i had in my talk and so those that did marry multiple women were wrong. >> so it sounds to me just listening to you during the last two minutes that there's certain parts of this document of the bible that you embrace literally and other parts you consider poetry. so it sounds to me in those last two minutes like you're going to take what you like, interpret literally and other passages you're going to interpret as poetic descriptions of human events. all that aside, i would say scientifically or as a reasonable man that it doesn't seem possible that all these things that contradict your literal interpretation of those first few passages. all those things that contradict
that, i find unsettling when you want me to embrace the rest of it as literal. now as i say i'm not a theologian, but we started this debate, is the ken ham creation model viable? does it hold water? can it fly? does it describe anything? and i'm still looking for an answer. >> have you ever believed that evolution was accomplished through way of a higher power? i think that's what they're trying to ask here. the intelligent design question, i think. if so, why or why not? why could not the evolutionary process be accomplished in this way? have you ever believed that evolution partook by way of evolution? >> let me introduce these ideas for mr. ham to comment.
the idea that there's a higher power that has driven the course of the advance of the universe and our own existence is one that you cannot prove or disapprove. and this gets us to this expression, agnostic. you can't know. i grant you that. when it comes to intelligent design, which is if i understand your interpretation of the question, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature. this is to say the old expression is if you were to find a watch in the field and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by a somebody who was thinking ahead. somebody with an organizational chart with somebody at the top chart with somebody at the top and he'd ordered screws from screw manufacturers and springs
from spring manufacturers and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers. but that's not how nature works. this is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living things that's provided by evolution. evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection. this is to say nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs. and so the perception that there is a designer that created all this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is far more compelling and provides predictions and things that are repeatable. i'm sure mr. ham here, the facility, you have an organization chart, i imagine you're at the top and it's a top-down structure. nature is not that way. nature is bottom-up. this is the discovery. things merge up, whatever makes it keep going, whatever doesn't makes it falls away. and this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and it's inconsistent with a top-down view.
>> what bill nye needs to do for me is to show me an example of something, some new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there and i would claim and challenge you that there is no such example that you can give. that's why i brought up the example in my presentation of lenski's experiments in regard to e-coli and there was some that seem to develop the ability to exist on citrate but as dr. -- said from looking at his research, he has found that that information was already there. it's just a gene that switched on and off and so there is no example because you know information that's there and the genetic information of different animals, plants, and so on is no new function that can be added. certainly great variation within a kind and that's what we look at. but you'd have to show an example of a brand new function
that never previously was possible. there is no such example that you can give anywhere in the world. >> name one institution, business or organization other than a church, amusement park or the creation museum that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product? >> any scientist out there, christian or non-christian, that is involved in inventing things involved in scientific method is using creation. they are because they are borrowing from a christian world view. they use the laws of logic. i keep emphasizing that. i want bill to tell me and a view of the universe as a result of natural processes, explain then where the laws of logic came from. why should we trust the laws of nature? i mean are they going to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday? in fact, some of the greatest scientists that ever lived, isaac newton, james clerk maxwell, michael faraday, were creationists. and as one of them said, you
know, thinking gods thought after him and that's really modern science really came out of. that thinking, that we can do experiments today and we can do the same tomorrow. we can trust the laws of logic. we can trust the laws of nature. and if we don't teach our children correctly about this, they're not going to be innovative. and they're not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance in our culture. and so i think that the person was trying to get out that see you know there are lots of secularists out there doing work and they don't believe in creation and they came up with great inventions. yeah but my point is they are borrowing from the christian world view to do so and as you saw from the video clips i gave, people like andrew -- and dr. faulkner has published in the secular journals. there's lots of creationists out there who publish. people might know that they're creationists because the topics do not specifically pertain to creation versus evolution but
there's lots of them out there. if you go to our website, there's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists, who are out there doing great work in this world. and helping to advance technology. >> there's a reason that i don't accept your ken ham model of creation. because it has no predictive quality as you touched on. and something that i've always found troubling, it sounds as though you believe your worldview which is literal interpretation of most parts of the bible is correct. what became of all those people who never heard of it? never heard of you. what became of all those people in asia? what became of all those first nations people in north america? were they condemned and doomed? i mean i don't know how much time you spend talking to strangers but they're not sanguine about that.
to have you tell them that they are inherently lost or misguided. it's very troubling. and you say there are no examples in nature, there are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions. >> since evolution teaches that man is evolving and growing smarter over time, how can you explain the numerous evidence of man's high intelligence in the past? >> hang on. there's no evidence that men, humans are getting smarter. no, especially if you ever met my old boss, no, it's that what happens in evolution, it's a british word that was used in the middle 1800's. it's survival of the fittest and this usage, it doesn't mean the most push-ups or the highest scores on a standardized test, it means that those fit in the best.
our intellect such as it is has enabled us to dominate the world i mean the evidence of humans is everywhere. james cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, the deepest part of the ocean, the first time since 1960 and when they made the first trip they found a beer can. humans are everywhere and so it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now. if a germ shows up as it did for example in world war i where more people were killed by the flu than were killed by the combatants in world war i. that is a troubling and remarkable fact. if the right germs show up, we'll be taken out. we'll be eliminated. being smarter is not a necessary consequence of evolution. so far it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us. we can control our environment and even change it as we are doing today apparently by accident. so everybody just take a little
while and grasp this fundamental idea. it's how you fit in with nature around you, so as the world changes, as it did for example for the ancient dinosaurs, they were taken out by a worldwide fireball apparently caused by an impactor. that's the best theory we have. and we are the result of organisms that lived through that catastrophe. it's not necessarily smarter, it's how you fit in with your environment. >> i remember at university, one of my professors said that he was very excited to give us an evidence for evolution. he said look at this, here's an example. this fish has evolved the ability not to see and he was going to give me an example of a blind cave fish and he said see in this cave, they are evolving because now the ones that are living in there, their ancestors have eyes but these ones are blind. and i remember telling my professor wait a minute, now they can't do something that they can do before.
they might have an advantage in this sense, in a situation that's dark like that. those that had eyes got diseases and died out. those that had mutations and no eyes are the ones that survived. it's not survival of the fittest. it's survival of those who survive. and it's survival of those who have the information in the circumstance to survive but it's not you're not getting new information, you're not getting new function. there's no example of that at all so we need to correctly understand these things. >> we are down to our final question. it is a question for both of you. let's give each man two minutes on this. i will have you start first here, mr. ham. mr. nye will have the last word. what is the one thing more than anything else upon which you base your beliefs? >> well, again, to summarize the things that i've been saying,
there is a book called the bible. it's a very unique book. it's very different from any other book out there. in fact, i don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts by telling you that there's an infinite god and it talks about the origin of the day and night and the origin of the earth, the origin of dry land, and the origin of plants, the origin of the sun, moon and stars, the origin of the sea creatures, the origin of flying creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, the origin of woman, the origin of death, the origin of sin, the origin of marriage, the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of nations, i mean it's a very very specific book and it gives us an account of a global flood in the history and the torah bible and if that history is true, then what about the rest of the book. well that history says that man is a sinner, that says that man is separated from god and it gives us a message we call the gospel.
a message of salvation that god's son stepped into history and died on the cross and raised from the dead and offers a free gift of salvation because the history is true that's why the message based in history is true. i actually went through some predictions and listed down some of these and there's a lot more that you can look at and you can go and test these for yourself. if this book really is true, it is so specific it should explain the world. it should make sense of what we see. the flood, yeah, we have fossils all over the world. the tower of babel, yeah, different people, different languages, flood legends very similar to the bible, creation legends similar to the bible, and prophecies and so on. and most of all, as i said, the bible says if you come to god, believe in that, he will reveal himself to you and you will know. if you search out the truth, if you really want god to show you as you search out for the silver and gold, he will show you. he will reveal himself to you. >> would you repeat the question? >> what is the one thing more than anything else upon which
you base your beliefs? >> as my old professor carl sagan said so often, "when you are in love, you want to tell the world." and i base my beliefs on the information and the process that we call science. it fills me with joy to make discoveries everyday, of things i've never seen before. it fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers. it is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me that we are, you and i, are somehow at least one of the ways that the universe knows itself. you and i are a product of the universe. it's astonishing. i see your faces and we have come to be because of the universe's existence. and we are driven to pursue that, to find out where we came from. and the second question we all want to know, are we alone?
are we alone in the universe? and these questions are deep within us and they drive us. so the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me. and i just want to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. if we abandon all that we've learned. our ancestors, what they've learned about nature and our place in it. if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we eschew, if we let go of everything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question, we and the united states will be out-competed by other countries, other economies. now that would be okay i guess. but i was born here, i'm a patriot. and so we have to embrace science education. to the voters and taxpayers that are watching, please keep that in mind. we have to keep science education in sci,